Obama sides with Bush on Afghanistan/Pakistan

[B_bi_in_socal]

While your at it, you might want to find an Armenian and ask him what he thinks about those oh-so-friendly Muslims.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

The belief that the violence of Islamic extremists is somehow OUR fault.

Not all of it, but if you don't think our previous administration's actions didn't pour some kerosene on the already burning situation, then you're quite ignorant.

Never mind the fact that these people also have beef with Hindu's, Buddhists, Sikhs, Agnostics, Atheists, gay people, transsexuals, lesbians, capitalists, democrats and Republicans. Nope!

Ironically, if we take out the word "Republican" in that statement, that would describe you perfectly. I would suggest you go to Gitmo, but since that's closing how about a one way ticket to Hell instead?

 

[B_Nick4444]

Aha! The first sighting of "Battered Liberal Syndrome".

The belief that the violence of Islamic extremists is somehow OUR fault. Never mind the fact that these people also have beef with Hindu's, Buddhists, Sikhs, Agnostics, Atheists, gay people, transsexuals, lesbians, capitalists, democrats and Republicans. Nope!

It's OUR fault they hate us LOL!!!!!

May I suggest you head to your nearest "Battered Liberal Shelter"?

Maybe you'll meet other liberals of like mind and start a company where you read and publish only "Islamic extremists" tolerant newsletters.

You can publish a story about how our defense of Israel, Kashmir, India, Gansu, Mindanao and London from Islamic extremists are to blame for suicide bombings, train bombings, missiles attacks and other Islamic campaigns of terror.

I mean, you can tell us but I don't know if the people of India would believe you seeing as how Muslims have been attacking them for 60 some odd years now.

I wonder what THEY did?

you might want to re-read the post

your imputation of an assertion by me of the original "cause" of Islamic violence being ascribable to us cannot be supported

indisputably, the Islamists are scoring propaganda points among the indigenous people by asserting American aggression against them, and their identification with Islam ... hence, attacks against them are attacks against Islam ... so defense of the Islamic ideology is fueled by anger at the destruction of civilian lives, as well ... which fuels greater animosity against us and our allies, foreign and domestic

given this, I do think our strategy bears some re-consideration and review

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

I was listening and all I heard was "Change, change, blah-di-fuckity-blah".

His "actionable intelligence" has a civilian hit ratio of 60% so far. Bombing people with drones sounds clever but is a very indescriminate way of dealing with an "enemy" who is entrenched inside a civilian population. Especially when it is on an allies soil against that govt's and it's populations wishes. .

What would you propose the U.S. policy be for Pakistan? Not Obama or Bush, but long-term U.S. policy?

The Pakistanis send actual people in and remove 22 militants from the equation with no civilian casualties. It is Pakistan after all and they have the right to.

I'm getting a very bad wiff from this already.

Do they?
Pakistan has been charged with use of "indiscriminate" force particularly in tribal areas, but the Red Mosque incident in Islamabad and actions in the Shikai Valley for about 10 years, are just two higher profile events that spring to mind.

Pakistan's military is adjusting to guerrilla warfare, for lack of a better term, in the same way other forces that deal with the Taliban or Al Qaeda have been, and are not significantly better or worse.

While your at it, you might want to find an Armenian and ask him what he thinks about those oh-so-friendly Muslims.

Irrelevant conjecture.

 

[Guy-jin]

This is pretty rich. Wait wait, the Conservabots are telling us to stop bombing terrorists now?

I think I found your CHANGE, sir.

Man, you guys will say ANYTHING! It's awesome.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

What would you propose the U.S. policy be for Pakistan? Not Obama or Bush, but long-term U.S. policy?

One thing that the West (it's not just the USA) must begin to respect is the sovereign rights of nations. Bombing the populations of an ally against their wishes is NOT the way to win love and respect.

These actions are the roots of terrorism. Fundamentalist Islam just feeds on the misery that Western terrorism begins. The metaphor is becoming tired but it is exactly like spraying a fire with kerosene to try and put it out.

 

[B_Nick4444]

One thing that the West (it's not just the USA) must begin to respect is the sovereign rights of nations. Bombing the populations of an ally against their wishes is NOT the way to win love and respect.

These actions are the roots of terrorism. Fundamentalist Islam just feeds on the misery that Western terrorism begins. The metaphor is becoming tired but it is exactly like spraying a fire with kerosene to try and put it out.

while I agree with you on the strategic points, there are some who extract from the strategy, a bargaining point to extract from the USA & others, certain benefits (even if it means some of their own people will be sacrificed) (I'm sure there is a lesson in there ... also brings to mind the Iran-Contra affair):

Pakistan should exploit US missile strikes, say analysts
By URL of this article:
Global Defence News : Defense News : Air Force Army Navy News
Jan 28, 2009



Islamabad: Pakistan should stop protesting against US missile strikes in its territory and instead focus on extracting concessions for what it sees as a violation of sovereignty, analysts said.

The first suspected US missile strikes since US President Barack Obama took office destroyed two alleged militant dens on Friday in the northwest tribal belt. Officials put the death toll at 21, including three children.
Sparking heavy criticism from the Pakistani government, the strikes dashed hopes that the new administration in Washington would halt such attacks in the fight against extremists in South Asia.
Political analysts stress that expectations of a policy change are unrealistic despite Washington's appointment of a new special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Obama administration's pledge to reinvigorate diplomatic strategy.
Former interior minister and retired lieutenant general Hamid Nawaz said Pakistan had to work harder in the national interest to extract concessions elsewhere and overcome the clear violation of national sovereignty.
"They (the US) are very serious as far as terrorism is concerned. The new US administration is deploying additional troops in Afghanistan and when General David Petraeus was here, he was concerned about the supply route (to the troops)," he said.
The United States is seeking to increase the number of supply routes into Afghanistan, where US and NATO forces are fighting Taliban insurgents, with extremist attacks plaguing the main transport corridor through Pakistan.
"The US may help Pakistan more in terms of giving more aid, offering more trade opportunities, relaxing pressure on the nuclear programme or helping us improve relations with India," Nawaz said.
"Pakistan has to take decisions in the national interest. There is no use in protesting to the United States. We will have to take action," said Nawaz.
"We can tell them 'do not violate our sovereignty and if you do we will stop the supply route', things like that, so that our voice is heard in Washington."
Ishtiaq Ahmed, an international relations professor at Islamabad's Quaid-i-Azam University, also hinted at some kind of quiet agreement.
"There might be an understanding at some levels between the two sides about the US drone attacks in Pakistani tribal areas," he told AFP.
"Protests by Pakistan over missile strikes are basically meant for domestic public consumption, otherwise it is not possible that we keep on protesting and they keep on doing it," Ahmed said.
Former president Pervez Musharraf also said recently that Pakistan's efforts in the fight against terror should be rewarded with greater assistance.
On the eve of Friday's strikes, Obama warned that Islamist extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan posed a grave threat and would be tackled as a single problem under a wider strategy.
Dozens of missile strikes since August have sparked government criticism of the United States, a close ally fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and believed to be firing the missiles from unmanned CIA aircraft.
"These attacks do not help the war on terror, it alienates the local population," said a spokesman for President Asif Ali Zardari after the head of state lunched with US ambassador Anne Patterson on Saturday.
"We maintain that these attacks are counter-productive and should be discontinued," said the foreign ministry spokesman.
Islamabad has welcomed Obama's appointment of veteran US diplomat Richard Holbrooke as special Afghanistan and Pakistan envoy, who has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize seven times and is best known for brokering the 1995 peace agreement that ended war in Bosnia.
Political analyst Hasan Askari said that while Washington pursues a double-pronged strategy, a full-scale review was underway.
"The US administration appears to be very active on Afghanistan... there are drone attacks and on the political front they have appointed a special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are reviewing policy," Askari told AFP.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

One thing that the West (it's not just the USA) must begin to respect is the sovereign rights of nations. Bombing the populations of an ally against their wishes is NOT the way to win love and respect.

These actions are the roots of terrorism. Fundamentalist Islam just feeds on the misery that Western terrorism begins. The metaphor is becoming tired but it is exactly like spraying a fire with kerosene to try and put it out.

I agree with the fundamental concept of respecting the statehood of nations, however, what do you propose as an alternative to the border incursions?

 

[Elmer Gantry]

I agree with the fundamental concept of respecting the statehood of nations, however, what do you propose as an alternative to the border incursions?

Support the Pakistan govt in dealing with the problem. Give them guns, give them money, give them whatever intel we might have. But let them deal with it. It's their problem on their soil.

You also can't barter away national sovereignty. That article is a disturbing portent to the future of a nationless world.

 

[B_Nick4444]

You also can't barter away national sovereignty. That article is a disturbing portent to the future of a nationless world.

another high five!

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Support the Pakistan govt in dealing with the problem. Give them guns, give them money, give them whatever intel we might have. But let them deal with it. It's their problem on their soil.

You also can't barter away national sovereignty. That article is a disturbing portent to the future of a nationless world.

What you are suggesting the U.S. has been doing since the fight against the Taliban began. The problem is, the Pakistan government has no real presence in these tribal areas, which are self-governing.

Since late 2006, early 2007, Pakistan began approaching the tribal governments for assistance in preventing the Talibanization of these areas - actually Pakistan in general - Bhutto pointed to Islamists gaining power in areas that previously did not have an extremists presence (like Lahore where Malik Shahid was just assasinated). However, because action has been so slow on Pakistan's side and were threatening the stability, or whatever, of Afghanistan, Bush decided to implement a campaign against the Taliban/Al Qaeda that make strikes against the coalition forces and then cross back into Pakistan, safe from any reprisal.

I can't imagine what other action Bush could have taken, because Pakistan, particularly under Musharraf, did not take care of the situation, and merely arming, training, providing intelligence, and supporting the tribal governments has not worked going on 8 years. Indeed, Pakistan as a nation may be in trouble, as Asif Zardari and Sherry Rehman discussed the issue of dis-unification in their country along ideological lines just this week. So, the U.S. may not be able to rely on help from the central government of Pakistan at all.

A bit more information about Pakistan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/world/asia/27sherpao.html?pagewanted=print

 

[Elmer Gantry]

Launching attacks from Pakistan is not the problem when aimed at the Taliban across the border who are the current "enemy". But actually attcking Pakistani territory, even the NW frontier tribal areas, is the destabilising influence you are alluding to.

This gives the fundamentalists all the ammo they need to show an increasingly disenfranchised population that not only is the West against them (which is not a new sentiment) but there own govt must ne against them as they are allowing these attacks on their own countrymen.

Talk all you want about helping to stabilise the Pakistani govt but it's doomed to failure with the spectre of another Iran (this time with a real bomb, not an imagined one) if this madness continues.

 

[B_Nick4444]

This gives the fundamentalists all the ammo they need to show an increasingly disenfranchised population that not only is the West against them (which is not a new sentiment) but there own govt must ne against them as they are allowing these attacks on their own countrymen.

indeed, and this is being exploited

Talk all you want about helping to stabilise the Pakistani govt but it's doomed to failure with the spectre of another Iran (this time with a real bomb, not an imagined one) if this madness continues.

predictable and foreseeable consequence, which makes the continuation of the policy perplexing, especially given the scanty results

but, as the previous poster indicated, what alternatives?

 

[Elmer Gantry]

We can only assist the Pakistan govt in this endeavour. Even if the gov gave the go ahead for US strikes on tribal villages, this would be even more disastrous as it would only vindicate the view that the Pakistan govt has turned on it's citizens.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

First, I didn't mention anything about stabilizing Pakistan. I stated the nation is experiencing a period of Islamic revivalism, and if history of the Gulf States is any guide, only economic conditions, namely prosperity, can alter the course, not outside influence. Unless it comes in the form of greenbacks - and it has been, in the billions, since at least November of 2001.

The Islamists in Pakistan have been on the rise since the 90s, a few years after the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, and border incursions had nothing to do with it.

Also, as I previously mentioned, the tribal areas are autonomous. These people are ethnic minorities in Pakistan and live outside the leadership of the central government. Like your misguided belief that Pakistan operates militarily without civilian casualties, you are equally ignorant about the role of identity in these Northern provinces, and whom they side with.

As of now, the U.S. thinks the best solution is to encourage tribal groups to counter extremists and training the Pakistan military, what little there is in the tribal areas, to stop the expansion. That seems the best solution, at the moment, and until someone can come up with a more fitting answer, this is the *long standing* course. Meaning, for nearly a decade, beginning with cash, intelligence training, and threats of bombing in 2001. Read Musharraf's book. Read interviews with Ikramullah Shahid. There's a lot of information out there about the internal issues of Pakistan and their inability, or rather, disinterest, in governing the Northern provinces.